On 2016-04-30 14:30:52 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:12:25PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-04-25 13:18:53 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > Rewriting the history is useful only when [...] > > > > > > > the whole argumentation is besides the point, as we're talking about > > > non-mainline branches. > > > > No, that's the point, as the intent of these patches is to be > > eventually applied to the main branch. > > > that's painfully obvious, and still besides the point.
Why? > > > > Note that the work in the feature branch should really be kept. This > > > > can be useful if a bug or some suspicious code is discovered later, > > > > in order to know what led to this code or what could be wrong if it > > > > is modified (e.g. simplified). > > > > > > > this has multiple implications: > > > - you cannot push the fixed up patches for review into the same branch. > > > > ? > > > that's just stating the reality of forced pushes. you can either > preserve the history, or have a cleaned up history. if you want both, > you need to store it in different places (branches). I still don't understand what you mean. > > > - the wip branch will never be merged. and as it also won't be deleted, > > > will will stay forever active in hg terms (though i guess you can > > > still hide it). > > > > No, the intent is to merge the branch. When done, it will automatically > > become inactive, but it is better to close it. If it is decided that the > > merge should not be done, then the branch can just be closed. > > > and here it shows that you just missed the point. > kevin wants to merge a clean history (as do i, for that matter). I think that we agree on that. > that's *by definition* not the working branch (unless he produces > only perfect commits, which his (reasonable) assumption is he > doesn't). that means that the working branch will be never merged. What I've said is that the work is done in a separate branch (a feature branch). Then, all that needs to be done is a merge to the main branch seen as a single commit (e.g., for git, "git merge --no-ff"). That way, one doesn't see the dirty work done in the feature branch, just the merge. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
